Gaby Hinsliff, The Guardian; The exodus from X to Bluesky has happened – the era of mass social media platforms is over
"Platforms come and go, but this feels different: the final death of the idea that social media could ever be the internet’s town square, a global meeting place for ideas that would broaden all our horizons. Now, the future of social media looks increasingly segregated for users’ safety, like rival fans at football."
Bobby Allyn , NPR; An Elon Musk-backed political group is posting fake Kamala Harris ads on Facebook
"A series of ads that look like they are from the Harris campaign are spreading falsehoods about her current policy positions, including that she wants to institute a mandatory gun-buyback program and give Medicare benefits and drivers’ licenses to undocumented immigrants. One of the ads asserts Harris wants to ban fracking. None of this is true.
The Facebook ads have collectively been viewed millions of times in swing states, posted by an account dubbed “Progress 2028,” a name suggesting a liberal counterpart to the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025.
But there is no such Harris-aligned initiative as Progress 2028. And the ads are bankrolled by Building America’s Future, a dark money group funded by billionaire Elon Musk and others, according to campaign tracking site Open Secrets. It’s part of the more than $100 million Musk has spent to help re-elect former president Donald Trump, campaign finance records show.
The ad buys are publicly available in an ad library database hosted by Meta, Facebook’s parent company. It shows that so far the group has posted 13 of these ads. As of Wednesday afternoon, Meta tallied the ads as having received 8.7 million impressions, although some viewers may have seen the same ads multiple times.
Experts told NPR that there is nothing illegal about the ads, since the First Amendment protects political speech, even when it contains lies. But the messages have the potential to lead voters astray just days before the election."
Theodore Schleifer and Mike Isaac, The New York Times; Mark Zuckerberg Is Done With Politics
"Instead of publicly engaging with Washington, Mr. Zuckerberg is repairing relationships with politicians behind the scenes. After the “Zuckerbucks” criticism, Mr. Zuckerberg hired Brian Baker, a prominent Republican strategist, to improve his positioning with right-wing media and Republican officials. In the lead-up to November’s election, Mr. Baker has emphasized to Mr. Trump and his top aides that Mr. Zuckerberg has no plans to make similar donations, a person familiar with the discussions said.
Mr. Zuckerberg has yet to forge a relationship with Vice President Kamala Harris. But over the summer, Mr. Zuckerberg had his first conversations with Mr. Trump since he left office, according to people familiar with the conversations."
Tim Murphy, Mother Jones; Mark Zuckerberg Isn’t Done With Politics. His Politics Have Just Changed.
"On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that one of the world’s richest men had recently experienced a major epiphany. After bankrolling a political organization that supported immigration reform, espousing his support for social justice, and donating hundreds of millions of dollars to support local election workers during the 2020 election, “Mark Zuckerberg is done with politics.”
The Facebook founder and part-time Hawaiian feudal lord, according to the piece, “believed that both parties loathed technology and that trying to continue engaging with political causes would only draw further scrutiny to their company,” and felt burned by the criticism he has faced in recent years, on everything from the proliferation of disinformation on Facebook to his investment in election administration (which conservatives dismissively referred to as “Zuckerbucks”). He is mad, in other words, that people are mad at him, and it has made him rethink his entire theory of how the world works.
It’s an interesting piece, which identifies a real switch in how Zuckerberg—who along with his wife, Priscilla Chan, has made a non-binding pledge to give away a majority of his wealth by the end of his lifetime—thinks about his influence and his own ideology. But there’s a fallacy underpinning that headline: Zuckerberg isn’t done with politics. His politics have simply changed."
Adam Satariano, The New York Times ; Meta Fined $1.3 Billion for Violating E.U. Data Privacy Rules
"Meta on Monday was fined a record 1.2 billion euros ($1.3 billion) and ordered to stop transferring data collected from Facebook users in Europe to the United States, in a major ruling against the social media company for violating European Union data protection rules...
The ruling, which is a record fine under the General Data Protection Regulation, or G.D.P.R., could affect data related to photos, friend connections and direct messages stored by Meta. It has the potential to bruise Facebook’s business in Europe, particularly if it hurts the company’s ability to target ads. Last month, Susan Li, Meta’s chief financial officer, told investors that about 10 percent of its worldwide ad revenue came from ads delivered to Facebook users in E.U. countries. In 2022, Meta had revenue of nearly $117 billion."
Charles Kaiser , The Guardian; Sandy Hook review: anatomy of an American tragedy – and the obscenity of social media
"Those recommendations are the result of the infernal algorithms which are at the heart of the business models of Facebook and YouTube and are probably more responsible for the breakdown in civil society in the US and the world than anything else invented.
“We thought the internet would give us this accelerated society of science and information,” says Lenny Pozner, whose son Noah was one of the Sandy Hook victims. But “really, we’ve gone back to flat earth”."
Jessica Bursztynsky , CNBC; Google plans privacy change similar to Apple’s, which wiped $230 billion off Facebook’s market cap
"Google on Wednesday announced it’s adopting new privacy restrictions that will cut tracking across apps on its Android devices, following a similar move made by Apple last year that upended several firms’ advertising practices."
Gilad Edelman, Wired; Congress Takes Aim at the Algorithms
"“I agree in principle that there should be liability, but I don’t think we’ve found the right set of terms to describe the processes we’re concerned about,” said Jonathan Stray, a visiting scholar at the Berkeley Center for Human-Compatible AI who studies recommendation algorithms. “What’s amplification, what’s enhancement, what’s personalization, what’s recommendation?”...
[Mary Anne] Franks proposes something both simpler and more sweeping: that Section 230 not apply to any company that “manifests deliberate indifference to unlawful material or conduct.” Her collaborator Danielle Citron has argued that companies should have to prove they took reasonable steps to prevent a certain type of harm before being granted immunity. If something like that became law, engagement-based algorithms wouldn’t go away—but the change could still be significant. The Facebook Papers revealed by Haugen, for example, show that Facebook very recently had little or no content-moderation infrastructurein regions like the Middle East and Africa, where hundreds of millions of its users live. Currently Section 230 largely protects US companies even in foreign markets. But imagine if someone defamed or targeted for harassment by an Instagram post in Afghanistan, where as of 2020 Facebook hadn’t even fully translated its forms for reporting hate speech, could sue under an “indifference” standard. The company would suddenly have a much stronger incentive to make sure its algorithms aren’t favoring material that could land it in court."
Eric Lutz, Vanity Fair; FACEBOOK EXEC: WE'RE NOT LIKE BIG TOBACCO BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE USE OUR PRODUCT
"“No one at Facebook is malevolent,” Haugen added, “but the incentives are misaligned.”
That, of course, speaks to the big issue facing Mark Zuckerberg: Though he insists that his platform is a force for good that is occasionally corrupted by the uglier parts of humanity, it may in fact be the case that the platform is corrupt by its very nature—and that talk of a safer Facebook, as Clegg suggested the company was working to deliver, is a bit like the “safer cigarettes” tobacco companies began marketing in response to health concerns more than half a century ago. That comparison, between Big Tech and Big Tobacco, has been made a lot recently, including by yours truly. But, asked by CNN’s Brian Stelter Sunday about the parallels, Clegg dismissed them out of hand as “misleading.”
“A part of me feels like I’m interviewing the head of a tobacco company right now,” Stelter said. “Part of me feels like I’m interviewing the head of a giant casino that gets rich by tricking its customers and making them addicted.”
“I think they’re profoundly false,” Clegg said of the analogies. “I don’t think it’s remotely like tobacco. I mean, social media apps, they’re apps. People download them on their phones, and why do they do that? I mean, there has to be a reason why a third of the world’s population enjoys using these apps.”
His point about free will is well-taken; Zuckerberg obviously isn’t forcing anyone to scroll. But rejecting comparisons to an addictive product by pointing out how many people around the world use it hardly seems like a great defense; in fact, as NPR’s David Gura pointed out, the line actually made the parallels more pronounced."
, The Verge; Facebook runs the coward’s playbook to smear the whistleblower
"Facebook has chosen to respond to whistleblower Frances Haugen in the most cowardly way possible: by hiding Mark Zuckerberg, the man ultimately responsible for Facebook’s decisions, and beginning the process of trying to smear and discredit Haugen.
This is some Big Tobacco bullshit — precisely what sleazeball PR guru John Scanlon was hired to do when Jeffrey Wigand blew the whistle on tobacco company Brown and Williamson. Scanlon’s task was to change “the story of B&W to a narrative about Wigand’s personality.”
Of course, that strategy “backfired completely,” Vanity Fair reported in 2004. It probably won’t work here, either. One senator, Edward Markey of Massachusetts, has already called Haugen “a 21st-century American hero,” adding that “our nation owes you a huge debt of gratitude.”...
But the funniest part is the absence of Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO and the only shareholder with the power to replace himself. Zuckerberg started Facebook as a Hot-or-Not clone — which almost certainly would negatively affect teen girls’ self-esteem. (At least he is consistent, I guess.) The decisions Haugen alleges, which put profits ahead of morals, have also enriched him more than anyone else. The buck stops, quite literally, with him. So where is he?"
Lauren Feiner, CNBC; Facebook whistleblower: The company knows it’s harming people and the buck stops with Zuckerberg
[Frances Haugen] also said she believes a healthy social media platform is possible to achieve and that Facebook presents “false choices ... between connecting with those you love online and your personal privacy.”...
‘Big Tobacco moment’
Opening the hearing Tuesday, Blumenthal called on Zuckerberg to come before the committee to explain the company’s actions. He called the company “morally bankrupt” for rejecting reforms offered by its own researchers.
Haugen said Zuckerberg’s unique position as CEO and founder with a majority of voting shares in the company makes him accountable only to himself.'
There are “no similarly powerful companies that are as unilaterally controlled,” Haugen said.
Blumenthal said the disclosures by Haugen ushered in a “Big Tobacco moment,” a comparison Haugen echoed in her own testimony. Blumenthal recalled his own work suing tobacco companies as Connecticut’s attorney general, remembering a similar time when enforcers learned those companies had conducted research that showed the harmful effects of their products.
Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., chairman of the Commerce Committee, called the hearing “part of the process of demystifying Big Tech.”"
Bobby Allyn, NPR; Here are 4 key points from the Facebook whistleblower's testimony on Capitol Hill
"Research shows Facebook coveted young users, despite health concerns.
Of particular concern to lawmakers on Tuesday was Instagram's impact on young children.
Haugen has leaked one Facebook study that found that 13.5 percent of U.K. teen girls in one survey say their suicidal thoughts became more frequent.
Another leaked study found 17% of teen girls say their eating disorders got worse after using Instagram.
About 32% of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse, Facebook's researchers found, which was first reported by the Journal.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., accused Facebook of intentionally targeting children under age 13 with an "addictive" product — despite the app requiring users be 13 years or older.
"It is clear that Facebook prioritizes profit over the well-being of children and all users," she said.
Blumenthal echoed this concern.
"Facebook exploited teens using powerful algorithms that amplified their insecurities," Blumenthal said. "I hope we will discuss as to whether there is such a thing as a safe algorithm.""
Caitlin McFall |, Fox News; Whistleblower says Facebook is a US 'national security issue'
"Haugen said her testimony was not an attempt to shut down Facebook, but rather to push Congress to dive into the complex arena of regulating social media giants.
Democrats and Republicans applauded her testimony and in rare bipartisan fashion agreed more is needed to be done to address growing concerns surrounding the social media network."
Clare Duffy , CNN; Facebook whistleblower revealed on '60 Minutes,' says the company prioritized profit over public good
"The thing I saw at Facebook over and over again was there were conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook, and Facebook over and over again chose to optimize for its own interests, like making more money," Haugen told "60 Minutes."
"60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelly quoted one internal Facebook (FB) document as saying: "We have evidence from a variety of sources that hate speech, divisive political speech and misinformation on Facebook and the family of apps are affecting societies around the world.""
Scott Pelley, 60 Minutes ; Whistleblower: Facebook is misleading the public on progress against hate speech, violence, misinformation
"Her name is Frances Haugen. That is a fact that Facebook has been anxious to know since last month when an anonymous former employee filed complaints with federal law enforcement. The complaints say Facebook's own research shows that it amplifies hate, misinformation and political unrest—but the company hides what it knows. One complaint alleges that Facebook's Instagram harms teenage girls. What makes Haugen's complaints unprecedented is the trove of private Facebook research she took when she quit in May. The documents appeared first, last month, in the Wall Street Journal. But tonight, Frances Haugen is revealing her identity to explain why she became the Facebook whistleblower.
Frances Haugen: The thing I saw at Facebook over and over again was there were conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook. And Facebook, over and over again, chose to optimize for its own interests, like making more money.
Frances Haugen is 37, a data scientist from Iowa with a degree in computer engineering and a Harvard master's degree in business. For 15 years she's worked for companies including Google and Pinterest.
Frances Haugen: I've seen a bunch of social networks and it was substantially worse at Facebook than anything I'd seen before."
SHANNON BOND , NPR; Facebook Ban On Donald Trump Will Hold, Social Network's Oversight Board Rules
"Facebook was justified in its decision to suspend then-President Donald Trump after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the company's Oversight Board said on Wednesday.
That means the company does not have to reinstate Trump's access to Facebook and Instagram immediately. But the panel said the company was wrong to impose an indefinite ban and said Facebook has six months to either restore Trump's account, make his suspension permanent, or suspend him for a specific period of time."
